Agree.

I don't know what you're asking.

Nothing is wrong w/ positions, beliefs, etc...

I know that Barack won't disclose his far-left leanings, because he's a politician and he wants to be elected.

It'll be dirty, and it'll be on both sides. I think history and common knowledge indicates the right is better at this stuff. Whether we can do it without turning off the country or not, who knows. Sometimes you turn off the country and still manage to win, depends on what mud is being slung.

By whatever means necessary? To a certain degree, yeah. If it turns you off, you're going to be turned off this cycle, by both sides.

I don't feel like I want to see a really dirty campaign, but I think I understand some of what Shinerbock is saying.

If Obama is permitted to stay within the range of platitude, pre-written speeches, and basically scripted interactions with the press and public, he might carry the day on charisma.

But, if you suspect as Shinerbock does, that Obama at heart is a much more far left figure that the public presently realizes, then you see a need for the truth to come out.

I may be misunderstanding him, but I don't think he mean sullying Obama with anything other than his own past and the past of his close associates or even the fringiness of some of his supporters.

And, I think that studies have been done that demonstrate as much as we all like to say we hate negative campaigning, it actually is very effective in swaying a lot of the electorate.

You're right, but you give me a little too much credit. Though I'd be personally conflicted about using arguably baseless attacks on Obama, if it kept him from getting the presidency, I'm not sure I could oppose such things this year. I sincerely believe this election cycle is that important.

In the most recent Democratic gubernatorial primary in NC, after months of mudslinging, one candidate said "no more." While her opponent continued to sling mud, she didn't -- she talked about her positions and her agenda. Certainly, it could be argued that she wouldn't have done it had she not already had a comfortable lead (she had held a strong lead in the polls that had been whittled away), but the fact is she trounced her opposition and gots lots of praise for "going clean."

We'll see what happens between now and November.

Or worse, depending on how you look at it. (And I look at it as one who came of age with Jesse Helms and the Congressional Club.) I'm not sure that being better at calumny is really something to aspire to.

And I have no problem with this if it's done honestly and above-board. What I have witnessed all to often (again, Jesse Helms, the Congressional Club and others) is that it is anything but honest and above-board -- it is done by twisting words, by misrepresenting the facts and by playing to fears and prejudices. And (sorry Shinerbock) I think it represents the worst form of political machinations -- the idea that the American people must be lied to and mislead in order to protect them from themselves and to "save the Republic." I find that much more frightening than the prospect of a very liberal or very conservative president.

It always makes me wonder if the candidate really doesn't believe that he can (or should) be elected on his own merit.

Yup. Just like last time.

Granted, there's a lot at stake here. That's why I would be a lot happier if both sides would present honest and respectful campaigns.

I think what makes is complicated is the perception of media bias on both sides. When people come to feel that they can't expect to be treated fairly by the press and feel the public is already being manipulated, I suspect it makes it easier to want to manipulate them yourself for your own ends.

I keep waiting to see what the influence of the internet ends up being. What it seems to be to me now is that it motivates and "informs" the already committed (and maybe even extremist) but may not have that much influence on a big section of voters who now simply choose to watch TV channels which already reflect their views.

ETA: This was interesting: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._election_2008

And actually, it seems that the candidates themselves are going to be eager to pretend that they are.

IMVHO/POV, having seen 30-40 debates already, I just do not see anyone in the professional mass media letting either one of the candidates stay to their "preferred" statements.

And in an open, honest, above board campaign, it would be rather difficult to stay there. Remember, we have only seen intra-conflicts, not the inter-conflicts between the two parties and their candidates.

So, perhaps we all will find out:
Just where on the Left one is.
Just where on the Right the other is.

Just what both their pasts are and just who they are affiliated with and close too.

If you are going to point out one for what ever matter or issue, you should remember that the same goes for the other.

And I still can not see any reason to fling mud.

Yeah, Jon, but it seems like McCain has been through that wringer a time or two before, and while I suppose his past could surprise younger voters, I don't think there's really much there that's unexplored. And he's got a pretty long record in office which is out there in the open.

On the other hand, what do we really know about Obama or what he's likely to really do?

And I think the mainstream media really likes him and aren't going to do too much digging or slinging, and yet we could probably have a countdown to the story about the Keating Five in the NYT, kind of a follow-up on McCain's "lack of ethics" demonstrated with the non-story about his affair they ran during the primary.

What makes you think that Obama is farther to the left than his positions and solutions to issues indicate on his website? They seem pretty far left to me (farther than I'm totally comfortable with). However, McCain is also moving further right in his speeches and campaign than he was during the 2000 primaries, so what should believe there?

Well, with McCain, you've got a pretty long voting record to go on which I would think would be predictive of what he actually believes and would do.

Rhetorically, I think he has to go right since he was pretty center and hopes to set himself apart and attract people more conservative than himself to the polls. I don't think he can expect to pull enough of the middle away from Obama to win without getting conservatives to believe it's important to elect him.

McCain is not, by any stretch, a far-right conservative. I hope he does move further right, but he's not even close to extreme.

I believe Obama is far left because of his associations, his statements, his past and his penchant for social engineering. I've seen similarly veiled statements from academics who acknowledge their socialistic tendencies and who focus on the destruction of the status quo with regard to economics.

Contrast Obama with someone like Hillary, who I believe to be a liberal opportunist. The latter, though politically dissimilar from my views, does not embrace the core of the far left. I think Obama understands and embraces those views.

Depends on what you define as flinging mud. Some in the MSM and on the left are going to say McCain is engaging in racist mudslinging anytime he mentions Barack's associations. I think such things are legitimate subjects for discussion.

Hillary only wanted 39% on the upper class, Obama will probably want somewhere in the 40s.
I was just thinking... if Obama picks Gore then hes unbeatable.

And if "dirty election"/"dirty politics" for what ever the reason or cause keeps John out (Obama wins) , just how would you feel?
As I posted before, when one says something about one side, it also holds true for the other.

Michelle Obama is Barak's babymama
 

pay attention to the caption...not the clip.....


I am cracking up over here!

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...baby_mama.html

Okay.

She referred to Barack as "my baby daddy" a couple of years ago at a rally. I wasn't thrilled over the reference but at least it was her doing it.

ETA: http://sandrarose.com/2008/06/12/mic...r-babys-daddy/

Thanks for posting this Nate.
I heard about this site while on way to gym.
Guess it is a sign of the times when one has to put up a site like this:(
Unfortunately, IMVHO, the people who "should/need to" see it either will not or just not care to believe in it.

yeah i don't believe it.

And these?:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...o_n_94833.html

Flawed Cindy McCain has a grudge list

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3295472.ece

Hey, we all can choose to believe in what we wish to.
However, we should at least attempt to differentiate between rumors, innuendos and facts. Even if those facts go against what we, for what ever reason(s), wish to think or believe.

I am far from prefect. I believe in ghosts. In part because I believe I have seen them. Twice.
Have no proof.

Article 1: I fail to see a problem with that.

Article 2: A UK site, seriously?

You have problems with news sites out side of the US?
Here is same site with article about:
Barack Obama sets up internet 'war room' to fight slurs

Internet ‘war room’ will rebuff false rumours

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4100170.ece

I think you posted something very close to this.

And this story, about FOX News is linked off of it:
Fox News slammed over "Obama's baby mama" jibe
Just 48 hours after being forced to demote an anchor for describing an Obama hand gesture as a "terrorist fist jab", Fox News has jumped right back into the fray, this time drawing outrage with a racist reference to the Democratic nominee's wife..........
http://timesonline.typepad.com/usele...ws-slamme.html

So they played on something that she said and now it's racist? is that what happened? I honestly thought that phrase was pretty common place now, "baby mama".

I would say it's common place for an out of wedlock situation. She is his wife, not his baby mama. They aren't referring to McCain's wife as his baby mama, are they?

It's comon place but on a 'reputable' news station is not the place for that type of comment. Save that for out and about with your friends.


Hmmmm...sounds like a setup for When "Keepin' it real" Goes Wrong.

From one of the linked news stories:
"Politico cites a Fox staffer as saying that others internally were bothered by the use of the offensive epithet - derogatory hip-hop slang for "the mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved", according to the Urban Dictionary."

And it seems as if this is just the start of what maybe multi-pronged effort by the GOP, and operatives, against the Obama's:
Michelle Obama becomes GOP target
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11044.html

Rezko: Feds pushed for dirt on Obama
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11041.html

When you say "everything bad" do you mean:
1) Things that "you" just do not like, yet are true?
2) Things that are intentional distortions of the truth?
3) Things that are out right false, but what "you" either wish were true or just made up to fit a curtain picture or mold?

And how would you feel if there is a back-latch against mud-slinging that causes the GOP to lose?

The "baby momma" comment is somewhat absurd (I mean, replaying what she said is one thing...), but I'll care about this as soon as I see the MSM start crying about Olbermann calling Bush a coward and a war criminal.

Fox News receives an inordinate amount of rebuke, but I guess thats to be expected when you're stomping the $%#@ out of your liberal competitors.

My only reaction was I thought it was a stupid reference to current movie.

you know what I find absolutely hilarious...is that people are now screamig that like what you just said: "Obama has more fault to expose" but yet at the same time you all say "Obama is inexperienced". Make up your damned minds already...if anything since McCain is he more senior of the 2 in both years and time served in Congress...would he not be the one with "more fault to expose."

coff coff **Keating Five**


Coff coff **last state to pass MLK holiday**



(for starters)

McCain has a very solid voting record, which will back up what he stands for. Obama has a voting record thats just perplexing. And its not that long.

so what is 'the more fault' part which is what I am trying to understand....and he may have a 'solid' voting record...it's just whether the american people will like the 'solidity' of his record....

Present

"The question is not how to make government work, but how to make it stop."
-P.J. O'Rourke

The Dems are going to have to do better than the Keating five and whatever BS about an MLK holiday you're referring to.

Yeah, your comment about the last state to pass the King Day holiday seems kind of a goofy thing to hold McCain responsible for*, DaemonSeid. And to be honest the number of people likely to be bothered by when Arizona started celebrating King Day even if you can hang it on McCain who aren't already voting for Obama is a pretty small group, I'd guess. (Not that white people don't also love King, but if 90% of Black people are already supporting Obama, how many people can one expect to pick up making King Day an issue?)

And it's not really in conflict to think that Obama lacks real experience in government but still might hold extremely left-wing views or have associations that some more centrist or right-wing people will find extreme. You don't have to hold office or have a voting record to hold or have held political positions or views. I mean, it looks like the Rev. Wright thing is blowing over, but it's a great example of the kind of thing that could come out.

ETA* actually, looking it up, it does seem like McCain is pretty clearly on record opposing King Day and later apologizing for his opposition. But I still don't think it's the sort of thing that's going to drive McCain supports to Obama.

Its blowing over but its in the back of people's minds.